Updated 2010-10-16 15:55 with details from school-board director Jo Posti’s blog post about the school district’s zoning appeal being denied.
Over on his blog, Commissioner Dan Miller
writes about being inundated with questions about
the school district losing its zoning appeal. He guesses that the school board is likely to respond by resurrecting an idea the municipal planner had suggested a couple of years back – a shared-parking agreement between the school district and municipality for the Commissioners’ Lot. This agreement would provide the school district with the additional parking needed to meet zoning requirements.
To give residents an idea of how long it takes for the gears of government to turn, Commissioner Miller offers a potential timeline for the school district’s detour through the municipal government, first to obtain the parking agreement and, following that, re-approval of its plans.
The timeline begins with this Monday’s school board meeting, where the board could vote to pursue a shared-parking agreement. The proposed agreement would then go to the commissioners. If they approve the agreement, the school district could then submit parking-enhanced plans to the planning board. The planning board could then meet in December or January to grant preliminary approval of the plans and to recommend to the commissioners that the plans receive final approval. Finally, the commissioners could vote on the planning board’s recommendation – in late February or, more likely, in early March 2011.
I gather that the school district would be able to continue with the high-school project after receiving preliminary approval from the planning board in December or January. Still, that’s quite a detour.
Which raises the question: Why didn’t the school district pursue the shared-parking option earlier?
The option was recommended to the school district two years ago. The school district knew it lacked adequate parking back in March, when the zoning hearing board told it so. So why pursue a time-consuming court appeal to an uncertain conclusion without securing other options? Court cases are always a gamble. If the school district had such an obvious way to hedge its bet, why didn’t it?
The only reason I can fathom is that the school district didn’t think it needed other options; it thought the zoning appeal was a sure thing. If that’s the case, what made it so confident? On its merits, the case didn’t look strong to me, so the sure-thing explanation seems hard to believe.
In the end, it’s a mystery to me. If anybody can explain why the shared-parking option wasn’t pursued earlier, let’s hear it.
Update
On her blog, school-board director
Jo Posti implies that a shared-parking agreement was, in fact, pursued but has just taken a long, long time:
[T]he parking agreement concept isn’t new but one that has required ongoing discussions regarding language and terms... It’s an agreement unique to the community that’s been given thoughtful consideration since there isn’t local precedent to model.
But
Commissioner Miller’s account is somewhat different: “Some may also be aware that there were some discussions on [the shared-parking agreement] in April and May of this year – but until recently the issue was dead.”
So what really happened? Did the school district earnestly pursue a shared-parking agreement during its zoning appeal or didn’t it?
Labels: Dan Miller, high school renovation, mt. lebanon school board, parking, planning board, zoning